Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 15 Jun 2017 01:14

From a layman's perspective, I think there are two different issues here.

Don't get me wrong, pixelation is required to contrast the characteristics of one pixel to it's neighbouring pixels. That's the way to distinguish a target from it's ambient environment. LOBL requires identifying a target from thise - limited - information.

But as the missile gets closer to the target, it will be represented by lot more pixels (dot becoming a circle). So there's a natural zooming happening. The contrast in characteristics of these pixels to surrounding will also change due to additional information.

My guess is that talk of 3.2/4km range meains that it is the first part (LOBL) where either our seeker doesn't have enough resolution or our algorithms are not able to interpolate to enough granularity. (Alternative seeker tech such as multi-spectral seekers can address both these issues as you've lot more information to begin with.)

As the missile approaches the target it just has to 'correlate' new information with the previous scan to keep itself on target (just like a pilot pointing the nose of his 3rd gen fighter to follow his target). This is an easier problem to solve.

shiv, just haze (hot rising gases) doesn't sufficiently capture the complexity of the ambient situation. If the target is static and has been soaking in the heat, then most likely engine has not been running (except perhaps to power the AC - which will introduce negative contrast - another interesting topic). Then the sand which is settled on the outer shell will absorb and reflect (silica) heat like it's surrounding. The target is then one with it's environment. If it's in the thick of action then there will be lot more heat, dust, explosions, smoke etc to make it interesting.

I said layman, because I'm just speculating on what might be the case. But I've some experience with machine learning. Many ML algorithms are tested to 'read' hand written text. I think above problem is not dissimilar though several orders more complex. Apologies, if I'm way off course.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Jun 2017 01:47

brar_w wrote:
Singha wrote:While laser guided atgm can hit anything its pointed to..how does a fnf atgm like javelin or nag work...does the seeker look down and do pattern matching on tanks and other things or it has a laser seeker?

I mean if its truly fnf how we can make it hit a particular bunker among many or even recognize a bunker which can come in lot of shapes vs a tank or ifv
On the Javelin and most other IIR utilizing FFR weapons in this class the gunner utilizes a CLU and its organic IR system to ID the desired target and then channels the missile'sIR seeker and establishes a track box around the desired target. Once the gunner has the desired target within the track gates and has sufficiently closed them the missile seeker is ready to keep the target focused as the target moves around within its field of view.

This is better illustrated in the videos below -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRonOSERpCk

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jun 2017 23:29

No updates on Nirbhay test date?

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 17 Jun 2017 12:48

Old News fom 2013, any update on it ?

http://m.thehindubusinessline.com/news/ ... 866081.ece
Prithvi missiles to be replaced by more-capable Prahar: DRDO

Seeking to enhance its precision strike capabilities, India is planning to replace its 150 km-range Prithvi ballistic missiles with the newly developed quick reaction Prahar missiles.

“We are withdrawing the tactical 150 km-range Prithvi missiles and will replace them with the Prahar missiles, which are more capable and have more accuracy,” DRDO chief Avinash Chander told PTI here.

The tactical versions of the Prithvi missiles would be withdrawn from service and will be upgraded to be used for longer ranges, he said.

The DRDO Chief said after the withdrawal of the tactical ballistic missiles from service, there would be a gap in strike capabilities in the range of 100 to 150 km-range.

“The Prahar missile would be used to fill up that gap,” he said.

The 150 km-range ‘Prahar’ is a single-stage missile and is fuelled by solid propellants. It was first test-fired by DRDO in mid-2011 from its range in Odisha.

The uniqueness of the missile system is that it can be fired in the salvo mode also from one launcher vehicle in which four missiles can be fired in one go.

This short-range missile would be an ‘excellent weapon’ which would fill the gap between the 90 km-range of the Smerch multi-barrel rocket launchers and guided missiles like ’Prithvi’, which can strike at 250 km to 350 km range.

The under-development Prahar missile would be offered to the Army for user trials very soon and after its acceptance, it is planned to be part of its Corps of Artillery.

The Prithvi missiles were developed by India under its Integrated Missile Development Programme in the 1980s. The ballistic missile was developed with multiple strike ranges from 150 km to 350 km.

The longer ranges are planned to be in service with both the Army and the IAF.

sum · Post by **sum** » 17 Jun 2017 13:18

As per a certain gent in a certain website which must not be named here, the Prahaar as a concept (using TBMs)was canned in 2014 or 15 timeframe by the top decision makers and is no longer in any consideration even in DRDO after the no-go

I would actually believe it since the news on this dropped to zero from last 2 years

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 17 Jun 2017 13:52

They have to moved to Pralay I think.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Jun 2017 19:35

Timeline of India's missile development programme

sas · Post by **sas** » 17 Jun 2017 22:12

Can any one id the missile in this video link close to 19 min mark ?
https://www.facebook.com/TejasMrca/vide ... 511068860/

TEL is a BEML-TATRA 8x8 VVL
A single tail fin is visible in the video, other than that a conduit is visible in the mid-section of the missile.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Jun 2017 03:26

Saurav Jha reports:

PRALAY: India’s New Under Development Conventional Strike Surface-to-Surface Missile

Basically, what Prahar is to Ashwin, Pralay is to PDV. More details of payload and range in the report.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Jun 2017 11:12

So IA missile force: Pinaka - 40km, Pinaka 2 - 60 km, Smerch - 90 km, Prithvi - 150-200km, Brahmos - 300-450km and now Pralay 500km. Prithvi will likely be removed as well.

IAF: Brahmos 300 km (ALCM), 300/450km - ground version (if 450km is ordered), Prithvi 3 - 350km & probably Pralay with 500km.

IAF, IA and IN will all likely get Nirbhays too.

Good show from DRDO but I do wish the Prahaar was also ordered in number and could have supplemented the Smerch & helped IA with deep strikes. It too had a 200kg warload and would have been significantly cheaper than Brahmos.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 18 Jun 2017 14:20

What about shaurya missile? Operationally it is close to Pralay.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Jun 2017 17:46

shaurya had excess weight due to its sub heritage.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Jun 2017 19:57

Excess weight? Excess complexity and cost, yes.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Jun 2017 20:12

it was designed for underwater ops, and carried more weight.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/agni ... 86248.html

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Jun 2017 20:15

basically heavier, not required for pdv land role where mobility and low footprint is IA ever present need

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Jun 2017 20:21

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Jun 2017 20:55

It appears Pralay and US Army's LRPF (499 km objective range for Increment-1 system) have some envelope and requirements overlap though there may be other differences (range of targets hence design). ATACMS is shorter ranged and older technology so one could probably do a lot towards better footprint, increased load out (4 LRPF's vs 2 ATACMS on standard M270 launcher) and mobility from it.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Jun 2017 21:09

Karan M wrote:it was designed for underwater ops, and carried more weight.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/agni ... 86248.html

Thanks.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Jun 2017 21:23

hey have you figured out what rudra is? which missile?

nash · Post by **nash** » 18 Jun 2017 22:06

Indranil wrote:Saurav Jha reports:

PRALAY: India’s New Under Development Conventional Strike Surface-to-Surface Missile

Basically, what Prahar is to Ashwin, Pralay is to PDV. More details of payload and range in the report.

If that is the case , What would be the range of PDV? - 500km?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Jun 2017 22:16

How do you get that? One is a ballistic missile defense interceptor, and the other is a ballistic missile. Different mission and different flight profile.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 18 Jun 2017 22:22

PDV was derived from liquid fueled Prithvi SRBM, which had a range of 350km

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jun 2017 22:25

Details of PROSPINA test

https://twitter.com/ramana_brf/status/8 ... 1775973376

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 18 Jun 2017 22:36

regarding the NAG IR seeker, its hard to believe that it is solely due to algorithms, if one is not seeing contrasting pixels from the seeker, software is limited, maybe they moved to nano bolometers now? considering the Army is getting night scopes with micro bolometers

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 18 Jun 2017 22:43

I do hope we adopt a common MRBL launcher platform like the M270/HIRAMS etc. able to fire Pinaka rockets, Smerch and ATACMS equivalent in plug and play mode.

nash · Post by **nash** » 18 Jun 2017 22:44

brar_w wrote:How do you get that? One is a ballistic missile defense interceptor, and the other is a ballistic missile. Different mission and different flight profile.

I didn't , that's why the Question.
Now if dimension , weight, flight ceiling, etc is similar then how much difference in range would be, considering mission and flight profile?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Jun 2017 22:52

Karan M wrote:hey have you figured out what rudra is? which missile?

No

vasu raya wrote:PDV was derived from liquid fueled Prithvi SRBM, which had a range of 350km

PDV was derived from Prithvi III, both of whose stages are solid.

brar_w wrote:How do you get that? One is a ballistic missile defense interceptor, and the other is a ballistic missile. Different mission and different flight profile.

They share only the propulsion and the basic airframe. In PDV's case, it is used to boost a kinetic kill vehicle. The kill vehicle itself is liquid fueled and IIR-guided.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Jun 2017 23:08

ramana wrote:Details of PROSPINA test

https://twitter.com/ramana_brf/status/8 ... 1775973376

Excellent development. But I hate the name Prospina

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Jun 2017 00:14

Indranil wrote: They share only the propulsion and the basic airframe. In PDV's case, it is used to boost a kinetic kill vehicle. The kill vehicle itself is liquid fueled and IIR-guided.

Right! Hence its not a comparable data point since you are talking about intercepting a warhead moving at x m/s at xxx km Altitude. Anti TBM performance is target dependent unlike a ballistic missile which strikes a fixed target at xxx km.

nash wrote: I didn't , that's why the Question.
Now if dimension , weight, flight ceiling, etc is similar then how much difference in range would be, considering mission and flight profile?

They are not comparable in any sense since the job of a ballistic missile is to fly in an efficient profile and maximize range if it is aiming for the limit of its envelope - It is attacking a fixed target.

An anti missile defense interceptor needs to reach a particular point within or outside the atmosphere at a specific time to intercept a warhead. How much downrange it travels would be variable depending upon its design parameters and the performance (Acceleration and burnout velocity etc) of the interceptor, performance of the warhead it is trying to intercept and the intercept dynamics such as when the target is detected, when a solution is calculated (earliest commit point etc) and the PIP errors associated with the intercept.

Some of the things that will determine how much downrange the intercept occurs would be the speed of the warhead and the altitude at which the intercept is to occur. Generally the lower the altitude the slower the warhead so you have a little bit more time and can travel further downrange for a fixed intercept average velocity. One would imagine you will also tailor your interceptors differently for such dynamic. But the performance of an ABM system in terms pure down-range capability is dependent on the missile it is attempting to intercept and the entire loop it is closing.

Envelopes are best calculated by stating some of the variables involved in a missile intercept. you end up with something like -

https://s1.postimg.org/rhtf5u0pr/EPAA-_ ... igure2.jpg

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Jun 2017 00:56

Of course.

I did not see the comment above yours and misunderstood what you were asking.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 19 Jun 2017 02:01

Indranil wrote:
ramana wrote:Details of PROSPINA test

https://twitter.com/ramana_brf/status/8 ... 1775973376
Excellent development. But I hate the name Prospina

Sounds like a distant cousin of rodina !

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 19 Jun 2017 02:30

From where that name came? Totally unknown word.

Bishwa · Post by **Bishwa** » 19 Jun 2017 03:34

Gen Carriappa renamed and relaunched the operation of capturing Zojila pass from Duck to Bison

Now renaming Nag to Prospina is the other way around

But hopefully it will succeed too

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Jun 2017 06:42

Indranil wrote:
ramana wrote:Details of PROSPINA test

https://twitter.com/ramana_brf/status/8 ... 1775973376
Excellent development. But I hate the name Prospina

Indranil, as I posted earlier, the DRDO Magazine , in its November 2016 issue stated that in the final ‘development trials’ on September 28-30, 2016, NAG had hit bull’s eye (target’s turret section or the engine) at the full-range of 4 Kms when fired at the ‘worst time window’ and it was confirmed by the Indian Army present on site.

So, this latest test must be a further confirmation that the November test was not a fluke. The ToI headline "DRDO finally tasted success" is misleading.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 19 Jun 2017 10:12

So if Prahaar is not going to be proceeded with what is going to be the replacement at that range (150 km +/-) or is there no longer such a requirement?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 19 Jun 2017 10:45

Supratik wrote:So if Prahaar is not going to be proceeded with what is going to be the replacement at that range (150 km +/-) or is there no longer such a requirement?

I think Pralay, Pinaka II, Bramhos and Nirbhay will have to take care of its targets. But I agree, something like Prahaar in numbers if relatively cheap and accurate would have been very useful. One wonders what is the reason for decesion to drop Prahaar.

srai · Post by **srai** » 19 Jun 2017 10:47

Indranil wrote:Saurav Jha reports:

PRALAY: India’s New Under Development Conventional Strike Surface-to-Surface Missile

Basically, what Prahar is to Ashwin, Pralay is to PDV. More details of payload and range in the report.

Karan M wrote:

Add the various types of miniature smart warheads and this one will be a good stand-off weapon against airfields and troop concentrations. With a range of 500km that would bring a lot of the PAF airbases within its range.

Some munitions under development:
DRDO Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon
-> BCES and PBFI configurations
-> At 800kg warhead capacity, around 7 x 120kg SAAWs could be carried.

NEW FAMILY OF MUNITIONS BY "DRDO"

Nipun - Soft target blast munition -> P-I and PBFI configurations
Vibhav - Anti-tank point attack munition -> P-I configuration
Ulka - Jumping fragmentation munition -> P-I and PBFI configurations
Parth - Directional fragmentation module

Chinmay · Post by **Chinmay** » 19 Jun 2017 11:05

We had also offered a variant of Prahaar called Pragati, for export. Presumably, that's been canned as well?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Jun 2017 11:28

Why can't we sell/gift some of our Prithvi's to pals like Vietnam,etc.? Prithvi's range has at various times been said to be at least 250KM.Dhanush,the sea-based version even more. Useful for the Viets who'll need such missiles against the Chinese. China can fart as much in anger,but it sells its milware to Pak,so why can't we repay it back in the same coin?

Chinmay · Post by **Chinmay** » 19 Jun 2017 11:39

Philip wrote:Why can't we sell/gift some of our Prithvi's to pals like Vietnam,etc.? Prithvi's range has at various times been said to be at least 250KM.Dhanush,the sea-based version even more. Useful for the Viets who'll need such missiles against the Chinese. China can fart as much in anger,but it sells its milware to Pak,so why can't we repay it back in the same coin?

Why would the Vietnamese need to launch ballistic missiles against a nuclear-armed neighbour? That would invite a whole heap of nukes on Ho Chi Minh City. A far better gift would be Brahmos LACM/AShMs.